House Rules you arrogantly assume everyone should use..

[Courtenay]

That is fine. Normally Japanese and western Axis forces are not in the same place, so the multiple states of war rules don't come into play.

[paulderynck]

I have deployed a large US fleet to Gibraltar while the US was at war with JP but not the euro-axis, then DoW'd the next turn and massacred Italian units in all three Med sea zones. I like the multiple states of war rules.

[rkr1958]

I have deployed a large US fleet to Gibraltar while the US was at war with JP but not the euro-axis, then DoW'd the next turn and massacred Italian units in all three Med sea zones. I like the multiple states of war rules.

I guess Italy and Germany should have taken the Tripartite Treaty they signed with Japan a bit more seriously.

[jjdenver]

I don't like that house rule at all. It is to strict on the Japanese and the USSR. A normal peace pact can be agreed on by both players and that's it (and if I'm playing the Japanese, I would really want such a pact, because it gives me free reign in China). If I'm playing the USSR, I would never want such a pact to be in place before it looks like China is save.

I like to use in my solo counterfactual game(s) because it's "historical". However; for non-solo, competitive play I agree that it's too restrictive.

Though, it could be a tool in competitive play to "mitigate" or "deemphasize" the impact of China on the early to mid game.

Interesting rule but I think the biggest(?) weakpoint of WIF is that it doesn't model the Russian Campaign well. And perhaps the 2nd biggest is that it's too easy for Japan to conquer China. Anyway there is no fatigue of Germany as they stretch to the Urals and drive to Turkey. The long supply lines don't matter. This make Russia basically too weak. So a rule that removes Zhukov's ability to turn 5 land units face up on the first turn to be able to move & respond to the Germans is too harsh I think.